On Chris Hayes and Heroism

It is a very good thing that the Nation‘s Chris Hayes has a weekend show on MSNBC. The panelists are smart and the lively conversations dig deeper than virtually anything else on cable news. (The same can be said for MSNBC‘s Melissa Harris-Perry.)

In other words, sounds like a recipe for trouble. And trouble arrived after a Memorial Day show that aired on May 27. Here’s the clip that caused the controversy. To me, his words sound carefully measured, and I think you get a better sense of that tone from seeing the clip rather than from reading a transcript (ad viewing courtesy of MSNBC):

There was an immediate outcry from some conservative bloggers, who railed against Hayes for disrespecting the troops on such a solemn day. (Conor Friesdorf has a great piece at the Atlantic responding to many of those critics.) Lively debates broke out on Twitter, with progressive commentators and journalists supporting Hayes and arguing that both the show in total and these comments in particular were being misrepresented.

But the next day Hayes issued an apology, saying he was “deeply sorry” and “truly sorry.” But it is difficult (for me) to square the apology with the words that caused the controversy. He correctly points out that he, as a TV host, is removed from the very real experience of the wars–as are most people. Asking questions about that fact was a key part of the point of the show. He goes on to say that this distance from the war makes it easy to

not ask questions about the direction of our strategy in Afghanistan, and to assuage our own collective guilt about this disconnect with a pro-forma ritual that we observe briefly before returning to our barbecues.

It’s hard to argue with that–but, again, that doesn’t really get at the comments that sparked the controversy. He closes by writing that

in seeking to discuss the civilian/military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don’t, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war

Whatever the faults with how he phrased his original comments–and I frankly don’t find any–the point he was making was that the automatic, uncritical rhetoric about war heroism can serve to constrain discussions about war policy. He was not at all callous or flippant in making this case–as he says at the end, “I could be wrong.” If anything, the critical feedback seems to have convinced him that he was.

There is no indication that Hayes was pressured by MSNBC management; he says the decision was his own.

There is no indication that Hayes was pressured by MSNBC management; he says the decision was his own. But it’s important to note that pressure from above affected MSNBC hosts like Phil Donahue and Keith Olbermann–the former was fired for being too critical of the Iraq War.

If anything, it seems Hayes proved his point about the boundaries of our discourse about war–and not in the way he intended.

Related

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

“We are not ruled by murderers, but only—by their friends,” Rudyard Kipling wrote a century ago. That the poet’s stinging aphorism has become hopelessly outdated is made clear by a New York Times article detailing the assassination program being run out of the Obama White House.

The lengthy May 29 article in the Times establishes that personally plotting killings and selecting victims occupies a great deal of President Barack Obama’s time. The process has been organized as a weekly routine, with Obama heading so-called “Terror Tuesday” meetings of military and intelligence officials. Each week they assemble in the White House situation room to study mug shots and biographies of those on the “kill list”, some of them minors and, in one case, “a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years.”

The article is not an exposé. It appears to have been commissioned by the administration itself as part of his re-election campaign’s attempt to run Obama as the unflinching commander-in-chief in the “war on terror,” touting the supposed success of his assassination program and outflanking the Republicans from the right.

Nonetheless, the portrayal of Obama and the state assassination apparatus he heads is chilling. The article testifies to the degenerate state of American “democracy” and the utter political demoralization of its ruling strata. Even though in its tone it imbibes much of political cynicism of the administration, its exposure of state criminality will ultimately have far-reaching implications.http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jun2012/pers-j01.shtml

Rather pathetic performance. By providing (another) precedent for the progressive who is unwilling to take heat for taking a progressive stance, Hayes is actually narrowing the range of allowed discussion, rather than expanding it.

The uncritical unabashed praise of heroes will thoughtlessly lead one to the conclusion that they are an unalloyed good. So, then let’s have more of this good, it follows; the surest way to have more heroes to celebrate, is to have more wars.

It is in the nature of the privileged powerful to praise the warrior even when the wars they die in support of are despicable. One need only look back to Reagan’s placing of a wreath on the graves of the fallen Nazi SS soldiers at Bitburg, Germany to see the simultaneous honor and dishonor soldiers and their families are subject to, heaping praise on them for their bravery despite their being coerced into the most meaningless and despicable efforts that do dishonor to their bravery.

To Reagan’s credit, he called the dead SS soldiers the victims of the Nazis, victims as much as the innocents they killed. What statesman of today will criticize and call the US dead soldiers also the victims of unjust US wars, victims just as certainly as those innocents they killed in the US wars they were lied into.

Chris Hayes is aware of his more progressive predecessors at MSNBC who were forced out and had smaller audiencs once they left. He therefore self-censored himslf and took the heat. I hope it helps him stay viable at MSNBC, but it inhibits the range of acceptable dissent.

I think the point Chris and others try to make is that there is a great class devide between the bulk of the troops and most of the rest. Without a draft it is inevitable that children of the college educated middle class will not serve in the military which releies on the ‘poverty draft’ to fill its ranks. And yes to Chris for acknowledging this bitter and undemocratic truth. The attempt to honor those who fight in wars which you oppose is difficult at best. But since no one in the US mainstream media is allowed to put forth a basic class analysis, we are left with these awkward statements and apologies.

“He therefore self-censored himslf and took the heat. I hope it helps him stay viable at MSNBC.”–Arnold above

If by “viable” you mean “employed,” then OK. The apology eliminates any viability Chris Hayes may have established as an even hesitant questioner of the military-corporate-civil religion ethos that brooks no challenge to this Empire’s ceaseless and ever-more-ruthless state of war.

“War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.”–John F. Kennedy

Not all human pawns are heroes. In these dreadful days of wars and drones and abject human suffering and political shenanigans, the word “Hero” seems to have become (in many instances) little more than a euphemism for a hapless soul with few choices. Chris Hayes’ words—before the “apology”—seemed thoughtful and well-considered to me. Although I am pained by the sense of loss of all whose precious loved ones have died in these (arguably) unnecessary wars, it does not mean that all of them were heroes. We “honor” them with words and we thank them for their service—despite the fact that we and they may not know what their service served!

Chris Hayes was 100% right with what he sad at first, the people who responds disgustingly completely misrepresented what he said, then he was most likely pressured to apologize for “nothing really”, then in his apology he ends up bringing ALL of us that agreed with him down, we are now forced to hide back in the shadows, it is quite shameful…..

No one seems to have notice the most important problem–the fact that we no longer have a way of referring to heroism. Americans use the word hero as a synonym for soldier. For Americans, the word hero has no meaning; it simply is an expression of emotion, “I love that!” So Americans say every soldier is a hero merely because they love soldiers and love invading other countries.

So in the media, every soldier is a hero . . . even if he deserts under fires. Even if he gets high on dope and murders six of his fellow soldiers. Even if he blows up an orphanage or hospital. Etc. Etc. None of that matters. All soldiers and every soldier is a hero.

The problem is this. If every soldier is a hero, then no soldier is a hero. Say an individual soldier were to act in a way that both is personally risky and that also makes an extraordinary contribution toward winning the battle. We now have no way of describing that soldier’s act. If we were to say that that soldier is a “hero,” everyone would think that we are saying that he is merley another soldier who has never done anything out of the ordinary.

This problem is the opposite side of the coin of Polticial Correctness. There are many morally evil actions we no longer are allowed to describe, so we now have no language for describing those evil actions, when they occur. In this case, we have no way of describing brave actions, when and if they were to occur.

It also is much liek words that have no meaning at all and that merely say “I hate him.” For example, the word fascism. Again, the problem is that if we call everything and anything we dislike fascism, then we no longer have any way of referring to Mussolini and Franco’s unusual political philosophy.

Heroism in a war started by your own nation cannot exist. Soldiers can show valour, compassion and bravery, but there are no heroes on the American side in the Afghan war. They are not valid recipients of the term simply because the threat that they saved their buddies/civilians from is entirely of their own nation’s making. It’s the same argument that there were no Nazi heroes. Certainly, there had to be instances of valour and bravery among the Nazi troops, with individuals putting their life on the line to protect their allies or the innocent; but those people simply cannot be called heroes, because the regime they represented was the very reason why those soldiers/civilians were in danger in the first place.

So we need to stop pussyfooting around the word “hero”; we need to remove it entirely from our vocabulary when we talk about soldiers of a regime that incited the war in the first place. Invaders are not allowed to be “heroic”; justice does not allow it. Thus, any use of the term “hero” concerning Afghanistan or Iraq, by America or representatives thereof, amounts to nothing but jingoism and beating of the war drums.

On Memorial Day, we are confronted by the difficulty in honoring the individuals who died in our wars [some willingly] without implicitly endorsing the endeavors in which those deaths occurred.

Those seeking to justify wars under the cover of honoring self-sacrifice seem to add value to the memory of the fallen, while those attempting to make distinctions are accused of disrespect and political expedience.

It’s not that simple, and thus it’s a pity that Chris Hayes so quickly retreated from his careful attempt to keep Memorial Day focused only on our war dead.

During the Vietnam war draft, opponents had an argument that doesn’t work for volunteer/mercenary armies. A potential middle class draftee could resist the draft, serve time, go to Canada, Sweden and other asylums so those from that class who submitted could be described as making a choice to participate in the war. Without a draft, that’s not possible.

heros my arse. the u s military/nato/israel are the real terrorists. if you go somewhere to kill another human that’s not self defence that’s murder. no, u s military are not heros they are murderers and terrorists.
Chris Hayes is no hero either.

I agree with Chris Hayes……He’s being honest and sharing his views. I want his opinions aired. If there is a disagreement, agree to disagree…..We don’t need anymore “robots” in the media. We have enough of them.

If we’re going to get down to the nitty gritty of a discourse, Heroes are MEN. Heroines are WOMEN. Don’t the women in service deserve consideration?

Hayes’ comments about true heroism were right-on. Just like Maher’s comments about organized religion and reason. The problem is that most Americans can’t handle reason. They’ve bought into the dogma and that’s all they can handle.

How can we have “heroes” and “heroines” when we instigate unlawful and illegal wars? Meaning no disrespect to our soldiers, et al, Y do not understand the ethos that has been built around the ours/theirs mentality of the sadistic-capitalistic economic policy of kill and/or be killed?

I’m reminded of the movie Flags of Our Father directed by Clint Eastwood. After the U.S. victory at Iwo Jima, a few soldier are made to circulate among the public to drum up support for the war effort. (By support, I don’t mean the feckless cheerleading we see today, but actual economic support by promoting the sale of war bonds. Back then, the government had to have the funds to continue the war effort. Unlike today, where the government goes to war and dumps the bill on our grandchildren.) The soldiers are, of course, billed as war heroes to increase war bond sales. However, they privately decline, and express much discomfort, with the title thrust upon them saying the only heroes they personally know of are their deceased comrades.

Chris Hayes has most probably overstepped his bounds at MSNBC. After all, the cable infotainment channel will not even entertain the idea of inviting members of Veterans Against the War to share their opinions let alone let one of their own pundits put into question our banal war slogans.

The word HERO, said my father who risked his life daily in the resistance during WW2 in the Netherlands, is an invention by those whose aim it is to make military conflict moral and make it patriotic and perpetual. The reality is that nothing is further from the truth. War is pure TERROR. I should know. When the U.S.created and funded Hitler they cannot very well walk the high ground and claim that they liberated the Europeans. It was the Soviets that destroyed Hitler forces and D-day was solely to prevent the Soviets from overrunning Europe. War is lucrative and we engage in it not to keep America free fut to enrich Corporate America. I like Chris Hayes. I am sorry he felt he had to apologize. I wouldn’t have. I would have said precisely what I stated here. It is a hoax. Gen. Smedley Butler was right when he said “war is a racket”.

I listened to Chris Hayes very carefully and he minded his P’s and Q’s still I knew he’d get heat from the gungho warmongers who look upon armed conflict as a sacrament from their warrior god they so fervently believe in.

Jan Rogozinski I disagree. Just because some miss use and overly use the term “fascism” doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist here. It does. Just look up what it means and then compare the USA to it. You will find out we are much along the way to a full on fascist state.

As for “Political Correctness” I’m so tired of hearing that invoked knowing it is very slippery in what it is used for. Right Now it is what Reich wingers use to mask their used of racist and sexist negative comments. That is all. Originally it was to point out others who towed the line of the govt and its corporate lackeys. Protecting bad things that were supported by the govt from economic slavery to racism. Then it was taken by the opposition to turned inside out for their use.

I admire Chris Hayes and agree with him. Generally, I think the comments here are excellent–very well thought out and informative. I’ve learned from them. I don’t think Chris Hayes should have apologized at all.

We all remember that during the Iraq War–at least in its early years–if you were against it, you were not only encouraging the enemy to attack our beloved sons and daughters in Iraq, you were dishonoring those who had died and you were morally offensive. If somebody fights and dies in war waged by the US, that war has to be holy, beyond question. Some years ago, when I sent out an email blast about an antiwar action that was favored by the leader of a particular group I was in (and the group was centered around an unrelated cause), a mother wrote in to demand she be taken off our email list because her son was a soldier in Iraq and we had no business undermining what he was doing. Because her son was fighting in Iraq, we had offended her and were unjust to her son. Why couldn’t she see what we were saying, and be happy that we were trying to bring her son home safely and quickly, and get him out of an unjust, criminal enterprise that was exploiting him and ready to spit him out as so much debris?

Now, the fact that there is no draft actually makes our soldiers more responsible for their actions. Many joined up after 9/11, to “serve our country.” They didn’t want to see that, in many instances, serving our country was viewed as annihilating Moslems no matter who they were. We had not been atacked by Iraq or Afghanistan in particular, but by a small terrorist group. More than a million innocent civilians who are not Americans have died because we were blaming them for what a few individuals had done.

Even today, with all that is known, fighting in Iraq (still) and Afghanistan is seen as serving our country. Oh, no, no, not at all! This is a disservice to our country. Although I want all veterans to get full services–jobs, housing, and so on–and it is a disgrace that they are not getting these things, they have unfortunately not been serving our country, no matter what they did in the recent and current wars. They were misguided. Honestly, they should have known better. Now we have to take care of them, but they willingly took part in a criminal enterprise under the American flag. It is still being said that they fight for our freedoms, our rights, but this is a damnable lie. Yet we must have compassion and assist them now in every way we can, to return to civilian life. They are not heroes unless they refused to serve in the first place. It is considered a crime by our government to sign up for the military and then refuse to serve because you don’t like the war you’re being sent to. You’re supposed to be the unquestioningly obedient servant of our President. It’s a very confusing situation, because “just following orders” doesn’t justify anything, and in a way these sons and daughters could be put on trial for going along with the lies, right? I hate to say that. Looking straight at the situation, we can see it is indeed comparable in some ways to what the German Nazi soldiers did. The Americans have been giving life and limb for evil power and for oil. What should we say for them? I want to be kind to them, but shouldn’t they have known? And if they should have known, what do they really deserve? I still want to welcome them home, but I can’t say with a full heart that they were brave.

You said nothing requiring an apology. Tragically, your apology helped cement the notion that any criticism of war equals a criticism of “the fallen.” Your original comments were so needed, the apology helps the center move just that much further right.

Sometimes, I think that the world would be a much better place if those that declared war actually had to be put on the ground fighting it too.

It worked that way in the ancient world for a while. Although, by Xerxes time, He would sit on a hill in a big chair and watch a lot of the fighting from afar. Ironically, this is what elected leaders do today, along with sitting in big chairs and watching from a HILL too.

It would also be great if those that developed and sold war machinery had to be out in the field examining the effects first hand. I guess that hasn’t happened since Oppenheimer.
Very sadly too, the only difference between a fool and a hero, it seems, is that the hero comes back alive. I sometimes think that when I read a news story where a person who tried and failed is not thought of favorably, and can be criticized for a “rash or stupid action.”

I wish Chris Hayes had not apologized, because the real definition of hero might be a person who says what they really think. This person would have no need of apology for true thoughts, even though some of the politicans thoughts heard lately are not often kind. Freedom of Speech ( with useful content) is a lost art in America.

Of course, in America, we also have the HERO sandwich…so the word itself doesn’t seem to mean much after all…meat smashed between crisp dough.

Hayes mentioned getting many emails in which people chided him that he had no right to question whether or not it is empty rhetoric to refer to their their sons and brothers as “heroes”. This is one of the strongest arguments for the universal national service that was debated on the same show – and about which Hayes expressed provisional disapproval.

There is is no reason to assume that any randomly selected service person could be appropriately labeled a “hero”; any more than any randomly selected service person should be labeled a murderer, rapist, or mercenary. Character in the military is just as variable as it is in our greater society.

With the mandatory 2-year service post high-school, the facile and generally empty symbolism of enshrining all well-behaved veterans as heroes would cease to be a tool used by propagandists on both sides of our electoral politics, and a greater degree of honesty and logic would prevail in debates surrounding the military.

I agree that he should of stood by his statement.Do we mix up the word” brave” with hero? I do a fundraiser were they give you a shirt that says a time for heros.I spend the day with movie stars and great food.Not really a hero.I loved Gloriana pointing out the sandwich called a hero.Yeah we probably use the word too much.Dad was a dive bomber pilot from 40-45.Never heard the word hero come out of his mouth.

I was very disappointed that Chris did not stand by what he said initially: that one is not automatically a hero because s/he enlists in the military and that we distort the meaning of the word by using it indiscriminately.

I was further disappointed that Chris devoted the first half of his Saturday, June 2 program to the civilian/military divide issue as though that were the problem. It is not. I kept wondering what the original topic for that hour was and what I had missed that would have been a better use for everyone’s time.

Glenn, you wrote this: “To Reagan’s credit, he called the dead SS soldiers the victims of the Nazis, victims as much as the innocents they killed. What statesman of today will criticize and call the US dead soldiers also the victims of unjust US wars, victims just as certainly as those innocents they killed in the US wars they were lied into.” (My emphasis –TN)
To Reagan’s credit? That statement reveals Reagan’s stupendous ignorance–the SS soldiers were the Nazis. Jesus Christ! Reagan, of course, never left the US during the war, despite what he and his many admirers like to think. He served in the Army Air Force’s (AAF) first motion picture unit at Culver City. His honoring of the SS soldiers was just another outrage, another witless, ignorant, contemptuous stomping on history by one of our most ignorant Presidents (and that’s saying something).
Reagan was just another President in a long, continuous line of them who knew nothing of war, and so were typically keen to start them (George H.W. Bush being the curious exception–remember the Panama “splendid little war”?). I’m including our current, blood-thirsty President of course, what with his “Tuesday terror meetings”(!!) and eager prosecution of our undeclared, “secret” drone wars. Of course, Obama has nothing on Dubya, but Obama has now “normalized” the thinking of the two parties about war. Mr. Obama’s minions are now as enthusiastic for wanton death and destruction (and executions and assassinations) as the Bushies, all because Obama’s a good guy who must be Doing The Right Thing, and besides, he’s smarter, no?